Jack vs. Tiger: Who's the Greatest Golfer?

[iacas]

Originally Posted by phan52

Majors were Majors before 1961

Your wordplay doesn't change the fact that you said Jack didn't do anything to manipulate the GOAT criteria, when he did.

It doesn't change the simple fact that these tournaments weren't called "majors" in 1913, or 1930, or even 1953 (which is all I was saying in calling them "majors").

It doesn't change the fact that these four events - in particular the British Open - weren't anywhere near as much of a focus for a lot of players until Arnie and Jack came onto the scene (which coincided with TV, cheaper/faster airfare/flights, etc.). To that, even the PGA and the R&A; didn't really consider each other's tournament terribly "big" since they often scheduled them with overlapping dates. Had they not, Ben Hogan for one might have won 18+ majors, but he wasn't afforded nearly as many playing opportunities as Jack was (nor could he reasonably win all four current "majors" in 1953 due to scheduling, but he batted 1.000 in the ones in which he could play).

In other words, and as I've been saying, the British Open wasn't all that important to U.S. players until Arnie and Jack re-vitalized the tournament and brought renewed interest to the oldest of the current majors. The U.S. Open wasn't terribly important to many foreign players, either. And the PGA lagged behind their acceptance to play in the U.S. Open, too.

Originally Posted by phan52

Like I said, Jack did not invent the metric.

No, but like others said, he did push for it to be the primary "stat" to count towards GOAT. And that's all people are saying… You said the opposite. You said that Jack never did anything to push for that to be considered. His own autobiographies refute your claim.

Originally Posted by phan52

Jack is the best because he was in the mix for the most important tournaments far more than anybody else, including Tiger. Tiger, for example, has never come from behind to win a Major on Sunday. What's up with that?

That's always struck me a a silly way of determining things, and will be the last thing Nicklaus supporters can cling to should Tiger (against the odds, IMO) get to 19 or 20 or so. "But Jack had 19 second-place finishes…". Big whoopty doo.

Second doesn't count. Wins matter. 19 will be > 18 even if Tiger never finishes inside the top 10 again in a major except the ones he wins.

FWIW, I consider it a very close race on GOAT. Tiger owns all the stats except the one Jack put the most emphasis on (and currently to his detriment, the one Tiger put the most emphasis on): current major victories.

[brocks]

It doesn't change the simple fact that these tournaments weren't called "majors" in 1913, or 1930, or even 1953 (which is all I was saying in calling them "majors").

Although I agree with your points in general, you have made some factual errors. Majors have been called "majors" for a very long time. For example, here's an article from 1930, which credits Bobby Jones with winning "the four major golf championships of the year, two in England and two in the United States," and goes on to say that his total number of major wins is 13. So it's clear that they are talking about the same events as people who discuss Jones's career today. http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=Y6NRAAAAIBAJ&sjid;=i2gDAAAAIBAJ&pg;=2919%2C2192026 However, it's also clear that they are counting his amateur events as majors, and since they say THE four, they must not consider the PGA Championship a major (the Masters, of course, had not yet been founded). So some events that were majors then aren't generally considered majors today, and vice versa. And majors could evidently lose their status, at least temporarily. When Hogan won the 1951 Masters, this article declared that he had won all of golf's majors: http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=AtlQAAAAIBAJ&sjid;=O9AMAAAAIBAJ&pg;=5796%2C6443962 So at least to that writer, the Masters was a major, but the British Open wasn't -- he said Hogan had won all of golf's majors, two years before Hogan entered his first British Open. For many years, writers who wanted there to be four professional majors counted either the Western Open or the North and South Open, both of which Hogan won multiple times. Several other events were designated majors for shorter periods, by fewer writers. For some, pretty much all that was required was a large purse. It took the combined power of TV and Arnie to set the four majors we now acknowledge in concrete. One other thing that causes confusion when reading old articles --- most writers reserved "major" for the premier events of the year, but a good number just used it in the normal sense of "significant." So you can find articles that credit Hogan with over 50 major titles, evidently just meaning PGA events, as opposed to the Podunk Pro-Am. [quote]To that, even the PGA and the R&A; didn't really consider each other's tournament terribly "big" since they often scheduled them with overlapping dates. Had they not, Ben Hogan for one might have won 18+ majors, but he wasn't afforded nearly as many playing opportunities as Jack was (nor could he reasonably win all four current "majors" in 1953 due to scheduling, but he batted 1.000 in the ones in which he could play).[/quote] Hogan was physically incapable of playing the six 36-hole days that winning the PGA required when it was match play, so he didn't play it for 11 years, from the time of his accident, until after it switched to stroke play. In fact, when a reporter asked him why he decided to play the Open in 1953, one of the reasons he gave was that it fit his schedule well, because there was nothing he wanted to play in the US at that time. I have no doubt that he could have won several more majors if not for his accident. He also lost nearly four years of his prime to WW2. But on the other hand, after the war ended, he benefited greatly from the very weak fields that had been decimated by the war. It probably took a good ten years to get them back to full strength.

[iacas]

Yep, in other words, "major" hasn't always meant the four tournaments we call "the majors" now. Arnie helped make them the majors and Jack promoted winning them as the measure. Either way, this is a tangential discussion to the stated topic, which we will get back to now. :-) My answer was given above. It's currently a tie IMO. More majors versus more of almost everything else (and broader, stiffer competition).

[turtleback]

Originally Posted by phan52

You seriously need to chill. What claim did I make that is nonsense?

Norman won more worldwide than anybody in the three major combined tours (PGA, Euro, Australasian). DiVicenzo is the one who was winning the Lesser Antilles Open and such, not Norman. DiVicenzo probably counts his club championship.

I am certainly am not claiming that it puts him in any higher echelon. It just happens to be a fact.

LOL, the Australasian tour is a major tour?  In what galaxy?  But I guess in a world that redefines the criteria for GOAT you can redefine major tours.  I'm guessing that Gary Player would have considered the South African Tour just as much of a "major" tour as the Australasian tour.

Originally Posted by Fourputt

You realize that no matter how passionate and tenacious you are, you will never win this debate because you will never get agreement on the metrics you use.  Why not just let it go.  Just because you get in the last word, it doesn't mean that you win, just means you are too stubborn to admit that there is no winner.

Tiger and Jack (and the media, no matter who started it) both use one metric, Major tournament success.  Jack leads, both in wins and in overall excellence in that category.  Therefore Jack should be the obvious leader to date.  But that doesn't work for you so you start trying to calculate the relative field strengths, and that is about as sensible as trying to eat a spoonful of fog.  You just can't ever get a real grip on it.  Just because you sit in a fog bank and raise a spoon to your mouth, that doesn't mean that there is actually anything in it.  Same with trying to measure players who played in different eras and never competed head to head, never played against the same fields, didn't play the same courses, never used the same equipment.

It's apples to oranges all over again, and no matter how much you try to twist it, the only comparison you can come up with is that they are both fruits.

I may never win the debate but I'll never lose it.  But is interesting (revealing?) that you chide the guy arguing for Tiger but not the guys arguing for Jack.  Every argument you make about the inability to compare eras applies just as much to the Jack supporters as it does to me and the other Tiger supporters.  Yet you chide me, and not them.    I like to think that you regard them as beyond saving and still have some hope for me, but I dunno.  LOL

Meanwhile I am apparently part of something that you find entertaining since you are reading it and even commenting on it.  So you're welcome for the entertainment, even if you don't happen to find it enlightening.

As to last word, we'll see if you respond to this.

[9iron]

Originally Posted by turtleback

And BTW I am still waiting for you to explain how Vijay would have been welcomed on the Caucasian only PGA tour.

I'm not discussing that issue with you any longer. It is pointless. If you wish to define things this way, go right ahead. I don't care to.

[9iron]

Originally Posted by Fourputt

You realize that no matter how passionate and tenacious you are, you will never win this debate because you will never get agreement on the metrics you use.  Why not just let it go.  Just because you get in the last word, it doesn't mean that you win, just means you are too stubborn to admit that there is no winner.

Tiger and Jack (and the media, no matter who started it) both use one metric, Major tournament success.  Jack leads, both in wins and in overall excellence in that category.  Therefore Jack should be the obvious leader to date.  But that doesn't work for you so you start trying to calculate the relative field strengths, and that is about as sensible as trying to eat a spoonful of fog.  You just can't ever get a real grip on it.  Just because you sit in a fog bank and raise a spoon to your mouth, that doesn't mean that there is actually anything in it.  Same with trying to measure players who played in different eras and never competed head to head, never played against the same fields, didn't play the same courses, never used the same equipment.

It's apples to oranges all over again, and no matter how much you try to twist it, the only comparison you can come up with is that they are both fruits.

Excellent, excellent post, fourputt.

It would seem obvious on its face that any thread that asks the question, "Who is the best", would be filled with subjective answers for all the reasons you describe. Some will say Tiger, some will say Jack. No one should get all bent out of shape over it.

[geauxforbroke]

I think the fact that this thread is over 7 years old just goes to show you that this debate won't end until either 1) Tiger gets to 19 or 2) Tiger retires. Most can agree that the general population of golfers and non-golfers that casually watch the sport (not a subset of hardcore golfers like us) will always judge "the greatest golfer of all time" on the number of majors. If Tiger gets there, he's the GOAT, if not, it's still Jack.

And we definitely have to get away from the notion that the GOAT is also the best or most talented golfer of all time. The history of sports is riddled with great and talented athletes that never accumulated the statistics or championships to get into the discussion as greatest of their sport. Joe Jackson is a great example. If he had had a full career and wasn't banned for his alleged involvement in the Black Sox scandal, we may be talking about him in the same breath as Ted Williams and Pete Rose as the greatest hitter of all time.

[turtleback]

Originally Posted by 9iron

I'm not discussing that issue with you any longer. It is pointless. If you wish to define things this way, go right ahead. I don't care to.

You're right.  When someone wants to define Vijay as Caucasian there IS no point. LOL

[Golfingdad]

Originally Posted by geauxforbroke

I think the fact that this thread is over 7 years old just goes to show you that this debate won't end until either 1) Tiger gets to 19 or 2) Tiger retires.

Imagine how long this thread might run on if Tiger only gets to 18? ;)

(You guys are all wrong anyway ... the real GOAT is Andy North ;))

[phan52]

Originally Posted by 9iron

Excellent, excellent post, fourputt.

It would seem obvious on its face that any thread that asks the question, "Who is the best", would be filled with subjective answers for all the reasons you describe. Some will say Tiger, some will say Jack. No one should get all bent out of shape over it.

For me, Tiger, over the first ten years of his career, was the most dominant player I have ever witnessed with my own eyes, and I go back to the mid-sixties as far as attending professional golf tournaments. On the other hand, Tiger himself is the one who has taken on the challenge of beating the Major metric, which requires more longevity. And IMO, he is no longer that player, although he is still the #1 player on the planet as we speak.

But the debate is totally subjective, and I'm saying Jack because of the finished body of work and the impression he made on me when I was young and probably more impressionable. I stood next to "Fat Jack" back in the day when he was the guy hitting shots that nobody else had in their arsenal. Tiger was like that when he first came on the scene, but he is really nothing special in comparison to other players now. The real deal was always his putter. You used to know that he was just going to make everything when it counted, and that is just not so anymore.

And Eric, the fact that Jack finished second and third a lot and came from behind a lot IS important because that is the main reason he ended up with 18. Jack hung around, waiting for the other guy to make the mistake and he took advantage. Tiger always tries to force the issue and that will probably be the cause of his ultimate failure in his quest.

I'll change my position on the GOAT when Tiger gets to 18. The balance of his career should break any tie. As usual. JMO.

[brocks]

May I ask the people who think it's so important that Tiger says "most majors" is the standard, would they go along with him if he changed his mind, like Jack did? If he says he now thinks that "most wins with at least 64 of the world's top 100 players in the field" should be the standard, which would make the count something like 32 to 13 in Tiger's favor (adding Tiger's WGCs to his majors, and throwing out the majors Jack won before 1970, except his US Opens, which IMO is very, very generous), would you still think that whatever Tiger says is good enough for you?

[newtogolf]

Originally Posted by brocks

May I ask the people who think it's so important that Tiger says "most majors" is the standard, would they go along with him if he changed his mind, like Jack did? If he says he now thinks that "most wins with at least 64 of the world's top 100 players in the field" should be the standard, which would make the count something like 32 to 13 in Tiger's favor (adding Tiger's WGCs to his majors, and throwing out the majors Jack won before 1970, except his US Opens, which IMO is very, very generous), would you still think that whatever Tiger says is good enough for you?

Most people claiming Jack is clearly GOAT are heavily influenced by Tigers personality and personal life.

I agree with Erik, at this point I believe it's a tie.  If Tiger gets closer to Jack's Majors record then I think the scale starts tipping Tigers way.  If Tiger wins another 20 tournaments over the rest of his career and 2-3 more Majors it's going to be hard not to consider Tiger GOAT.

[9iron]

Originally Posted by turtleback

You're right.  When someone wants to define Vijay as Caucasian there IS no point. LOL

It is obvious that you are hung up on race issues. You seem to see everything thru this prism. I'm not, and I don't, and that is why I have no interest in discussing this issue with you. You obviously are going to boil it all down to race..

[turtleback]

Originally Posted by 9iron

It is obvious that you are hung up on race issues. You seem to see everything thru this prism. I'm not, and I don't, and that is why I have no interest in discussing this issue with you. You obviously are going to boil it all down to race.

So basically you said something ridiculous, cannot defend it, and so attack me instead.  If you want to deny that the PGA was overtly discriminatory before 1961, and covertly discriminatory after 1961 for a long time, and that the "gentlemen" of the game did nothing to counter that, then fine.  Recognizing reality is not seeing everything through a prism.  Ignoring reality is just putting your head in the sand.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by phan52

And Eric, the fact that Jack finished second and third a lot and came from behind a lot IS important because that is the main reason he ended up with 18.

No. It's important to you. It's not "important." Critical distinction.

Very few people care who finishes second. The only time I can think of such an instance in recent years is when Cink won the British Open.

For most people: Wins count, seconds do not.

Do you think Phil Mickelson really gives a crap about finishing second in the U.S. Open 137 times? I guarantee you his ONE British Open and his ONE PGA Championship victory each mean more to him than the sum total of his second place finishes. Heck, his regular PGA Tour victories likely mean more to him than finishing second.

Originally Posted by phan52

Jack hung around, waiting for the other guy to make the mistake and he took advantage.

And when that didn't work out he lost. Winning is what counts. Heck, nobody really even credits the Bills with having a good team despite attending four straight Super Bowls.

[phan52]

Quote:

Originally Posted by phan52

And Eric, the fact that Jack finished second and third a lot and came from behind a lot IS important because that is the main reason he ended up with 18.

Originally Posted by iacas

No. It's important to you. It's not "important." Critical distinction.

Very few people care who finishes second. The only time I can think of such an instance in recent years is when Cink won the British Open.

For most people: Wins count, seconds do not.

Do you think Phil Mickelson really gives a crap about finishing second in the U.S. Open 137 times? I guarantee you his ONE British Open and his ONE PGA Championship victory each mean more to him than the sum total of his second place finishes. Heck, his regular PGA Tour victories likely mean more to him than finishing second.

And when that didn't work out he lost. Winning is what counts. Heck, nobody really even credits the Bills with having a good team despite attending four straight Super Bowls.

It's important because it gave him opportunities. Tiger doesn't get the same opportunities because he is impatient unless he is in the lead and forces the issue.

Ask Nick Faldo how important it is to "hang around" in Majors.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by phan52

It's important because it gave him opportunities.

You're missing the point: the opportunities were TO WIN, which is the only thing most people care about.

Yes, he won 18 because he was around quite a bit. But if Tiger wins 18 or 19 or 20 without equaling Jack's second-place finishes, so what? Almost nobody will care except the Jack apologists, because "number of times finishing second" will almost literally be the LAST and ONLY thing Jack would still have over Tiger. And it's a small thing to have, since again, almost nobody cares about second place finishes.

So no, in the context of GOAT, it's not important. The number of wins is important, the number of seconds is not.

Originally Posted by phan52

Ask Nick Faldo how important it is to "hang around" in Majors.

I'm pretty sure sure Tiger knows a bit more about how to win majors than Nick Faldo seeing as how he's won more than twice as many of them.

[phan52]

Originally Posted by iacas

You're missing the point: the opportunities were TO WIN, which is the only thing most people care about.

Yes, he won 18 because he was around quite a bit. But if Tiger wins 18 or 19 or 20 without equaling Jack's second-place finishes, so what? Almost nobody will care except the Jack apologists, because "number of times finishing second" will almost literally be the LAST and ONLY thing Jack would still have over Tiger. And it's a small thing to have, since again, almost nobody cares about second place finishes.

So no, in the context of GOAT, it's not important. The number of wins is important, the number of seconds is not.

Obviously YOU are missing the point. Tiger will never get to 18 because he doesn't have Jack's patience. I don't know how you can't see that Tiger's failure to win from behind in Majors isn't a problem for him.

Whatever. I'm done here.

JACK!!  18-14. You do the math.